So, what you're saying is that if you throw the term "religiously believes..." around, that makes the conclusion a religion? I do not "religiously believe" in the nonexistence of the supernatural. I do not believe in it's existence because there has not been enough evidence provided for me to accept it. I am not "holding to various causes, principles, and systems of belief with ardor and faith." I trust in science because it is the surest way for us to learn the truth about reality. Trusting a proven method and allowing it to lead you to the truth is NOT the same as "believing" in it using "faith."

To demand that someone back up their statement using evidence and then not accepting supposition, superstition and speculation is not "religiously holding to a belief". Point out things that are clearly understood and supported with evidence is not "religiously holding to a belief using faith."

It almost sounds like you have been listening to those door knockers too long and are starting to believe that reason, evidence, and reality is no more valid their their crazy, irrational contradictory fairy tales.

A religion, by definition (this isn't the only source of course), is a belief, not a non-belief. A person in remote China may not have heard of Santa Clause and therefore would not be a believer in such a mythical entity. By your argument their lack of belief and strong resistance to being convinced of such would be a religion. A person may engage in routine daily exercises religiously but such exercises would not be not be a religion. The idea of doing something 'religiously" simply means it is done without wavering. It's a metaphor, not an identity semantically.

To Mercedes, is there anything that would convince you that all gods are the creation of men and not the other way around? You say you want to understand but it seems to me all you want to do is put your fingers in your ears. What are your true intentions here?

But we really have no way of knowing, have we, how many "Undecided's" may have been reading those 36 pages, listened to our logic, noted her weak defense of something upon which she is literally betting her life, and decided to think for themselves. and that's really what we want.

Many books have been written (my personal favorite for why not to believe is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith) but we can't exactly regard them as scripture handed down from on high and dogmatically demand that other atheists adhere to one of them; that's the sort of thing you do when you are trying to form a group, not dissociate yourself from others' groups.

The Atheist community is disorganized, adrift in thousands of (often conflicting) disbelief concepts.

What conflicting concepts? How can not believing in the same thing possibly conflict? I don't believe in gods because I was never pressured into religion as a child, you don't believe because you realized that the religion was wrong. Our reasons may be different, but the end result is always the same. Not believing in gods. We all have our reasons on why, or how we got here, but disbelief cannot conflict other disbelief. You can't make two nothings conflict.

The Official Guide to Atheism.

There is such a thing. Although it is not a book. More of a sentence.

I do not believe in the existence of any gods.

That is the only "rule" of atheism. Everything else is humanism and reality.

If you start piecing together a "Atheist Bible", you are turning a disbelief into belief. If that is more your style, I suggest visiting FTB and joining A+. They are more into the hive mind mentality.

Children should benefit from science books, history books and reason. If they are introduced to those things, they will let go of fairy tales all on their own. We don't need our own version of the bible to do that.